Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago, the skies over London and southern England were a tangled mass of contrails and a roar of Merlin engines as Churchill's “few” hurled their Spitfires and Hurricanes against the Nazi onslaught on the island standing majestically alone in the face of aggression.

From airfields like Biggin Hill, Northholt and Tangmere, more than 100 Canadian fighter pilots in No. 1 Fighter Squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force and 13 Royal Air Force fighter squadrons, including 242 Canadian Squadron commanded by the legendary Douglas Bader, fought valiantly and with great effect contributing significantly to the British victory.

By the end of the battle, Hitler's dreams of Operation Sea Lion were dashed, but at the cost of 544 aircrew, including 23 Canadian fighter pilots who made the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of freedom.

The Battle of Britain was a turning point in the war and yesterday we celebrated its 70th anniversary and the spirit of the British, Canadian and other Commonwealth aircrew who made this, indeed, the British Empire's finest hour.

I bless them all, the long, the short and the tall. Per ardua ad astra.

Mr. Speaker, on October 3, the first stage of the Nutrition North program will be implemented, replacing the food mail program. The new program will be better and will cost less, according to officials with the Department of Indian Affairs.

However, by abolishing the well-established system of “entry points”, the department is sweeping aside more than 30 years of success. Expertise will not count for much under the new program because the rules of the marketplace will prevail. A retailer as far away as Winnipeg could send foodstuffs to northern Quebec, if it has the quantities needed. The logic of flying in supplies from the nearest location will no longer apply. Not only could the new Nutrition North program have negative economic repercussions on entry points, but no one can demonstrate that the program's objective of making quality products available at a low cost will be met.

Mr. Speaker, today, with the House back in session, Canadians have reason to celebrate. Today is the first day that parliamentarians will be subject to the rules and obligations of the Lobbying Act.

When this Conservative government brought in the Federal Accountability Act, we toughened up the lax Liberal rules and delivered greater accountability to government. As a result, Canadians now have a independent officer of Parliament with the tools, rules and independence needed to do the job. Anyone who lobbies public office-holders must register with the Lobbying Commissioner and report monthly on his or her lobbying activities with designated public office-holders.

By extending these rules to members of Parliament, senators and exempt staff in the opposition leader's office, we can ensure that all lobbying activities directed toward parliamentarians will be accounted for, fully transparent and fully available to Canadians.

As the House of Commons resumes today, we look forward to working together to ensure that Parliament is delivering results for and is accountable to Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, today people living with MS are protesting across this country, including on Parliament Hill, for clinical trials for the new liberation procedure for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency or CCSVI.

Over 1,500 liberation procedures have been performed worldwide, with researchers from Bulgaria, Italy, Kuwait and the United States showing similar results, namely that 87% to 90% of MS patients show venous abnormality. Of the 400 cases reviewed by Canada's Dr. MacDonald, 90% show a venous problem and, of the 381 patients angioplastied, the gold standard, by Dr. Simka in Poland, 97% show a problem.

We need evidence-based medicine in Canada. Again, I call on the government to collect the evidence through clinical trials and a registry. Time is brain and any delay in clinical trials possibly means more damage and may mean the difference between walking and not walking, living on their own or in care, or living and not.

Mr. Speaker, in this new session, the number one priority of Quebeckers and Canadians, and therefore of our Conservative government, remains the economy.

Although the economic recovery is still tentative, our government is working to maintain jobs for families and communities. In the next few months, our actions will be guided by three bold principles: supporting job creation and economic growth; ensuring the safety of our communities, our streets and our families and protecting them against terrorism and crime; and leading the way to economic recovery, renewed growth and employment for Quebeckers and Canadians.

In the next few months, our Conservative government will seek the wisdom and advice of the Canadian population in order to develop the next phase of the economic action plan.

We must remain vigilant and, more than ever, we must make good decisions that will set the long-term course for our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the B.C. government's recent decision to undertake a public inquiry into the investigation of the downtown eastside's murdered and missing women. Families and friends deserve answers as to why the disappearance of their daughters, sisters, mothers and friends was overlooked for so long.

For decades, law enforcement policies played a real part in allowing over 60 women to go missing from the downtown eastside with little notice from authorities. Society failed these women at every turn. A public inquiry into the actions of law enforcement and the judicial system must rectify these failures and protect the most vulnerable in our society.

I call on the federal government and the RCMP to fully co-operate and assist in the inquiry. We must also engage in a community-led process that allows the downtown eastside to deal with the trauma and impact on so many lives. Mistakes, discrimination, racism, harmful laws and policies must be identified and then rectified.

Mr. Speaker, the economy remains the number one priority of Canadians and of our Conservative government. At a time when our economic recovery is still uncertain, Canadians can count on this government and the Prime Minister to continue to focus on maintaining jobs, security and prosperity for Canadian families and communities.

Our government knows that Canada's long-term prosperity is driven by the creativity, ingenuity and the common sense of entrepreneurs, owners of small businesses and hard-working families across the country. In the coming months our actions will be guided by three bold principles: supporting job creation and economic growth; keeping our communities, our streets, our families safe from terrorism and crime; and mapping the path to economic recovery to ensure jobs and prosperity for all Canadians for years to come.

We urge all members to work together with us during this parliamentary session so we can continue to deliver for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, we have grown accustomed to the Conservatives' short-sighted, partisan, ideological decisions since they were elected in 2006.

We saw this when, because of partisan zeal, they refused to talk about abortion and access to contraception as part of the maternal and child health abroad file during the G8 and G20 summits. We saw it in connection with the gun registry, where, in their ideological blindness, the Conservatives lost sight of the fact that the registry, which has countless supporters in Quebec and Canada, saves lives. We saw it when they got rid of the mandatory long census form, which they claimed violated people's privacy. We have seen it in connection with climate change every time the Conservatives downplay the impact of human activities. That is what we in the Bloc Québécois call ideological obstinacy.

It seems clear that, as Manon Cornellier of Le Devoir recently said, “the government has shown that it has a soft spot for self-serving ignorance”.

Mr. Speaker, this summer the Liberal leader and the Liberal express team were met by enthusiastic crowds in all 13 provinces and territories in over 165 events, covering 56,000 kilometres.

Our leader was welcomed by people who simply wanted to meet him, talk to him and have their photograph taken with him. He took all the time he needed to listen carefully to each person. Everywhere we went, the message was clear.

We heard that the government's priorities of planes, prisons and photo ops were out of touch with what average Canadian families really needed: help with paying for post secondary education; strong and substantial public health care; help with caring for sick and aging loved ones; a secure retirement; and high-quality full-time jobs.

Liberals will keep fighting for hard-pressed Canadian families by focusing on their real priorities.

Mr. Speaker, today the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore announced that he was changing his vote on the long gun registry and he would be following his leader's orders to vote to save the wasteful and inefficient long gun registry. This sudden change of heart comes despite the member's clear record on this issue and that his constituents voted for him in the last election, believing his word that he would vote to scrap the registry.

As he said on August 30, less than one month ago, “If Bill C-391, as it is currently written, comes up for a vote, I will be voting in favour of it”. Last year he told the House, “In my 12 years in this place all I have ever asked is that the government bring in a bill that is very clear and ends the long gun registry. I would personally stand up and support that”.

On Wednesday, his constituents will see, once and for all, if he stands with them or with his out of touch Toronto leader. Why has the member turned away from his constituents when it matters?

Democracy has taken another hit. The Liberals have been whipped, while the NDP have flipped. What a sad day for democracy.

Mr. Speaker, this summer, I listened to the concerns of Canadians. They are concerned about their mortgages, health care and pensions and about their children's education. The concerns of this government are fighter planes, prisons and an absurd battle against the census.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is he ignoring the real concerns of Canadians? They are the ones calling the shots, not him.

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, this government's main priority is Canada's economy. That is one reason Canada's economy is outperforming other economies.

I toured the country as well and I saw 16,000 job-creating projects across Canada. A recent study by the OECD shows that Canada's national assets and the government's timely decisions are what minimized the financial and economic damages caused by the global recession. Canadians should be pleased about that.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, he is going to have to explain the waste to Canadians, $1 billion on a G8 and G20 summit photo opportunity and $10 billion to $13 billion on prisons when crime is actually declining.

The Prime Minister is going to have to explain these priorities to Canadians. He is going to have to explain why it is that it makes sense to give corporations a $6 billion tax cut when we are in a $54 billion deficit.

Mr. Speaker, the government is talking about jacking up payroll tax, which will cost Canadian jobs.

Everybody wants to keep Canada safe, but if the government is going to bid for $16 billion worth of aircraft, it should at least have a competitive bid that gives regional economic business to all the aerospace industries in Canada. If it is going to spend $13 billion on prisons, the government better have a better argument than the one we heard.

When will the government start listening to the real priorities of Canadians? Canadians make the law, not the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. It was the previous Liberal government that in 2002 participated in an international competition to select the next jet fighter. It spent $150 million-plus on that competition.

We chose that jet because we will need to replace the jets at the end of this decade and not ground our air force.

On this side of the House, when it comes to the aerospace industry of the country and the men and women in uniform, we do not play politics with these decisions.

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the tax relief that we have provided to Canadians; it is about $3,000 per family across the country so far.

We have reduced taxes of all kinds in this country, including personal income taxes, helping, as I say, typical families get along in what has been a difficult recession.

The rest of the world looks at Canada as the way to handle an economic downturn. We are the model. We are the rising star, according to the OECD and The Economist. Canadians can be proud of the way their government has handled the recession.

The big corporation tax rate in Canada has already been slashed by more than 35%. It is already the lowest in the G7, except for the U.K. It is already 10 points lower than the American rate.

When this country is deep in a Conservative deficit, why borrow an extra $6 billion every year to make those already competitive tax rates even more generous? Corporate tax cuts on borrowed money: what good is that for families, pensions, caregivers, or learning?

Mr. Speaker, there are two clearly different approaches. One is to reduce taxes, help Canadians and help their families. We have done that for more than four years now.

The other approach is to raise taxes, which is what the official opposition plans to do. As the Leader of the Opposition said last year, “Federal taxes must go up; we will have to raise taxes”. That is the position of the Leader of the Opposition: tax and spend.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, the Conservatives announced that, in this new session, law and order would once again be their priority. This morning, however, the President of the Treasury Board reiterated that he would continue to fight for the abolition of the firearms registry, no matter the outcome of Wednesday's vote. Yet, everyone agrees that the registry is a vital tool. That is what the RCMP, police chiefs and women's groups are saying.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit that his stubborn attempt to abolish the firearms registry is driven only by ideology?

Mr. Speaker, our position is clear. We support gun control, but the kind that targets criminals, not aboriginal peoples, duck hunters and farmers. Such a registry is obviously useless and ineffective. I even noticed that the Montreal Gazette said the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, our party supports effective and useful gun control. We do not support a registry that targets Canada's rural areas, duck hunters and farmers. We must have laws that target criminals and criminal activities.

Mr. Speaker, the government's approach to dismantling the firearms registry has been inspired by policies proposed by the NRA in the United States. However, if there is one model not to follow, it would be that of the Americans. Homicide rates in the United States are three times higher than those in Canada and five times higher than in Quebec.

Instead of playing the NRA's game and adopting lax American-style gun control practices, why is the government not abandoning its plans to dismantle the firearms registry?